A weird thing about the 2008 election as it's developing is that maybe the best VP match for both Democrat front-runners is an Indiana politician, Evan Bayh. Bayh would pair up well with Obama in a kind of "new young different" way, while he not only matches well with Clinton as an experienced politician with a certain amount of personal charisma there will be pressure on Clinton to choose him as payback to the party regulars who asked Bayh to sit this one out, party regulars she'll have needed if she's won the nomination.

The weirdest thing, though, is that you can argue that the best match for the Republican front runners... is an Indiana politician, Richard Lugar. He's whip-smart, so conservatively well-credentialed he personally dick-punched Phil Gramm out of politics in 1996, balances well against an east coaster, and is dripping in foreign policy experience.

Hillary will probably try to prove she's her own person and pick someone insane, like Gary Locke.

If I were running the campaigns, I would have the Democrat winner name Oprah and the Republican winner name Catherine Bell from JAG, which would energize the 75-year-old Republican base even though it's off the air.

Yeah, I think the only way that doesn't happen is if one of the Clintons' close advisors makes a personal issue of it and uses the example of Gore choosing Lieberman over Bayh as an example of how that can be poorly done to nudge her in the safe-choice direction.

Considering the general question, Warren, I think it's really hard to know yet, because the one thing we learned last time is that the nomination process begins after Iowa, as Kerry was in no one's serious picture of the Democratic outcome until the day after the caucuses. No one I remember, anyway. But even that becomes super-weird in that both Democratic front-runners seem like disciplined enough politicians not to pull a Vinko Bogataj like Dean did, but my sense is that either Republican front runner might potentially wipe out after a few weeks of performing under expectations with the heat of delegates being at stake.

There was a fascinating article in NYTimes the other day on the blood war that never happened when Guilliani dropped out of the Senate race in 2000 and the fact that there is a good possibility we may get it now. Almost made me wish for that face off.

I've been convinced that Bayh's the key for a while now, not least because he's going to be sitting on a packet of markers arranged by Daddy. He's endorsed Hillary, but he'd benefit Obama enormously.

I grew up in Indiana (not something that I often admit) and the Bayh name (his daddy was a politician at the State and Federal level for quite a while) has as much political clout there as the Kennedy name has in New England. I was seriously disappointed when he backed out of his go at the President but I think that he can bring a lot to a Democrat ticket. He can really ground some Yankee, Beltway politician with the farmers and Middle America. I think that anyone who overlooks Bayh deserves what they get out of their results.

I hate to be the one to say it, but I sincerely doubt that Obama is going to get it. He is black, or close enough to it, to split many parts of "middle America" enough into the GOP's favor, and the Dems do know this. And those "obama's a muslim" emails are getting just enough press to plant the suggestion, which will also work against him. In my opinion, he's the best candidate, but there you have it. But then again, the same can be said about Clinton. America may be free, but that doesn't mean the thinking is.

End of the day, I'm predicting a GOP presidential win. Every candidate, from both parties, are putting out scarily hawk-ish rhetoric, which seems to be lining up (in conjunction with the media going on about Iran, the worsening of Iraq, etc) that issue for the crux of the campaign, and in Hawk-isms the Democrats have no traction.

I'm probably wrong, and not American, but that's the view from the Great White North. Now somebody prove me wrong, Guiliani + Harper = bad mojo.

I am waiting to see who the actual candidates are. For the primaries I am picking Obama on the Democratic side, and the Republican nomination is up for grabs. Who actually wins the Presidency is dependent upon who the third party candidates are, and which party they play spoiler for.

Right now, I'm calling it Obama/Bayh for the Dems, and Guiliani and the ghost of Idi Amin for the GOP.

The Democrats are a weird toss-up to me right now - they might just be stupid enough to nominate Hillary, therefore giving us at least four years of President Romney. Obama is gaining, but Edwards is working very, very hard in Iowa. It's currently not inconceivable that Clinton takes third place in Iowa and has too close of a margin in New Hampshire to prevent the race from turning on her and becoming Obama v Edwards. And while I like the fact that Edwards talks more about poverty than any other candidate, I've never trusted him, and I'm going to be pissed-off if I end up having to vote for another White Male Southerner. Not to mention the fact that on the same stage with the GOP nominee Edwards comes off as a petulant little boy, and I don't see him taking the General. Anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of people warming to Biden (of all people) - I don't see it actually ending up reflected in numbers, but it interests me nonetheless.

I think the ghost of Idi Amin has more of a chance than Giuliani at this point. He's doing well nationally, but primary voters who get close to him see him for the crooked, lispy, troll that he is. I'm still calling it for Romney - Huckabee is sucking all the evangelical oxygen out of the room but doesn't have the chops to go anywhere else with it, with the net result being him simply preventing the strongest anti-Mormon vote from going to any candidate who has a chance. Romney getting "caught" being rabidly anti-Muslim is not so much an actual political problem for him as it is another distraction away from Mormonism. And I think the shenanigans with the fake push polling isn't going to break with the kind of hard evidence needed to torch his campaign. Honestly, the fake push polling makes me even more certain oh his eventual winning, because it's exactly the kind of unabashed evil Nixon's PR team would have pulled. Romney clearly believes in only two things: money and winning. And those are the two core beliefs that get you a GOP Presidential nomination.

That's a neat link on Paul. I think most of his supporters are going to wish it away, and he'll still do well in the primary, but it sure as shit hobbles his hopes of ever actually winning. Which were non-existent, anyway. Paul's best hope is to come in a convincing second or third place in the bulk of the primaries, with a win or two tucked away, so he can safely say that he did much better than anyone could have possibly expected and force the Neocon wing of the Republican Party to take him and the Libertarians seriously. If he wants to actually gain something from this election, his best bet is to lose well. If he were somehow able to score the nomination, he'd be trounced so thoroughly that Libertarianism would be dead, at least on a national level. Which is kind of okay with me, except that I like a divided Republican Party much more than the united Neocon front that the world has endured for nearly a decade. A strong showing in a loss means that he's a big-name player and Libertarianism gets a seat at the Republican table, and if the Democratic Party's been split for so long, it seems only fair to see the same happen to the Republicans.

The Republican race is exclusively Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney, in terms of who could actually get the nomination. Thompson's worse than useless and has managed to translate his momentum into absolutely nothing; McCain is laughable and is going to reap what he's sown for the past eight years of selling his unearned credibility. Hunter and Tancredo are non-entities, and Paul's been discussed.

I wouldn't lay odds between Giuliani and Romney at this point. Huckabee's still a long shot, but I expect him to surge. I think Iowa comes down to Romney and Huckabee, and Giuliani may regret sitting that one out.

As for the Democrats, nobody ever lost money betting that the white guy would be nominated for President, and I think Edwards is still the likely pick.

Take Ross Perot, mix with David Duke and throw in a dash of George W Bush, stir lightly and poor over ice and you have yourself one Ron Paul. The man really is a contradiction of himself. He says he believes in non-interventionism, which is just another word for isolationism, but wrote H.CON.RES.231 which allows the US to call the Panama Canal Sovereign US Territory after the lease ran out and Panama fulfilled their obligation. He says he is a strict Constitutionalist, but wants to limit the ability of the Supreme Court to hear cases that interpret the Constitution (HR 300, HR 4379, HR 5739, HR3893, HR1547, HR 4922, HR 5078), even though this power is given to the Supreme Court via the Constitution.

The Dems love showboating Clinton and Obama but I don't believe the party truly believe either can win the majority white male vote. And despite every politcal candidate, regardless of party affiliation, playing to their favorite "minority" group, the truth is you can't win the presidency in this country without getting the white male vote. So I think Edwards will be the surprise nom coming out of this as the party falls prey to their own insecurities, rather than go with the best candidate... unless Oprah's support behind Obama can somehow both overcome his nascent political stumblings AND bring in larger demographics in key voting groups - then he might have a chance.

I know this is irrelevant, but here in Australia we just had a regime change last weekend, actually. Tyrant Howard was ousted, and Overlord Rudd has been seated upon the Dread Throne. And it was a long time coming. Too much procrastination on environmental issues, and sweeping our institutional human rights abuses under the rug, finally caught up with Howard. It gets to a point where The Economy (Howard's speciality and main platform) takes a backseat to more human issues.

In any case, Howard's economic management was never as rosy as he's portrayed it to be. All of the talk about how great the now former government had been for the economy was greatly exaggerated. When Howard first came into power, the interest rate was 6.5%. He inherited a relatively low interest rate from the Labor Government. He didn't click his fingers and magically bring them down. Admittedly rates were high during the Hawke-Keating government but this was hardly a problem experienced only in Australia.

Net Foreign Debt has increased 12%. Household savings as a percentage of household income have reduced from 7.4% under Hawke-Keating to 0.5% under Howard. Household debt has risen from 52% under Hawke-Keating to 116% under Howard.

ON AVERAGE Australian interest rates are 1.3 basis points higher than the global average implying that you pay 23% more for your money in Australia than you would for the average of the rest of the world.

Oh hell, I kind've like Kucinich. You see, in the US guys like him are immediatley labled "fridge candidates", and I guess the fact that he looks like a weary wood elf doesn't help matters much. But there's a part of my mind that screams "Go with a winner! What, wou want *Romney* tearing through civil rights like Jack Bauer after his girlfriend is assasinated by Dirty Arab Terrorists?" That said, Ole Weary Wood Elf has shown himself to be a bright guy and knowlegable.

As to who would get my actual vote? Obama. The best writer of the bunch, which at least suggests that he cares for the things that come out of his mind. And his experience hints at an awareness that, yes, we have a Constitution and no, it's not just just a tool that liberals (cohorting with Dirty Arab Terrorists, no doubt) use to make America weaker.

So yeah, Obama. Or maybe Fred Thomspon, just to watch a man mumble into a stupor during his first State of the Union address.